SKIRECHT
DE EN BKS
Menü
Slope accidents

Case-by-case assessment of the slope safety duty, the method under OGH 9 Ob 50/16t

OGH 9 Ob 50/16t summarises the method for the slope safety duty: case-by-case assessment rather than templates. Methodological close of the series.

Your personal attorney

Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

Your lawyer for ski piste and mountain sports law

Ski accidents are complex and emotional. One lawyer you know, from the first question to the courtroom.

Call directly +43 660 2407152 WhatsApp Send email
Book consultation
4 June 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

The slope safety duty is not a uniform yardstick. It depends on the special circumstances of each individual case. The OGH summarised this case-by-case assessment concisely in decision 9 Ob 50/16t: whether the slope safety duty has been complied with cannot be conclusively determined by general rules.

This post, the eighth and last in the series "Slope safety 2026", closes the series with a methodological keynote. In the concrete case a skier collided after a fall on the slope with a wind fence. The OGH confirmed the lower courts' view that the fall was due to a chain of unfortunate circumstances and that the fence visible from afar was not an atypical risk.

Audience: injured skiers in all constellations needing methodological framing. From the lawyer's perspective central: the case-by-case assessment is not an empty argument but demands a precise recording of the concrete geometry, sight conditions and construction factors. Templates do not help.

Frame the situation

How recognisable was the obstacle?

Answer a short entry question on the recognisability of the obstacle. You receive a first assessment against the case-by-case line 9 Ob 50/16t.

You already know you want to send a request? Go directly to the contact form.

01 Question 1

How recognisable was the obstacle?

The OGH line 9 Ob 50/16t stresses the recognisability criterion. What was visible from a distance and not surprising for a responsible skier does not count as atypical.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Claim rather difficult. OGH line 9 Ob 50/16t supports the skier's self-responsibility.

The OGH in 9 Ob 50/16t clarified: a wind fence visible from afar and well recognisable is not an atypical hazard. Anyone colliding with it has a difficult starting position. The slope safety duty is not an obligation to protect the skier from every possible hazard.

Your own accident insurance is the economically relevant first port of call. A brief initial legal assessment can make sense, because the details often reveal anchors that are not obvious at first glance (such as recognisable material defects, maintenance documentation).

02

Claim viable, atypical risk is given.

A hard or non-recognisable obstacle is, under settled OGH case law, atypical and subject to the safety duty. If the obstacle lay behind a crest, was hidden by sight conditions or became non-recognisable through weather, the breach of safety duty is regularly to be affirmed.

Evidence: photos of the sight situation, weather data for the day of the accident, fall point marking. Expert opinions on sight geometry are standard in the dispute phase.

03

Claim viable on two tracks, slope safety duty and work liability under Section 1319 ABGB.

With documented construction defects or missed maintenance, the work liability under Section 1319 ABGB (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) comes into play alongside the slope safety duty. This liability requires that the damage event rest on the work's deficient condition and that the work owner does not prove that he applied all due care for hazard prevention. The burden of proof lies with the owner.

Evidence: request the ski area's maintenance logs, expert opinion on material weakness, witnesses who saw prior damage. Pursue both liability tracks in parallel.

The case-by-case line 9 Ob 50/16t

In 9 Ob 50/16t the OGH summarised the methodological line on the slope safety duty concisely. Only atypical hazards are subject to securing. Atypical is a hazard which, taking into account the appearance and the announced level of difficulty of the slope, is unexpected or hard to avoid even for a responsible skier (RIS-Justiz RS0023417).

The extent of safety measures on a ski slope depends on the type of hazard source. Artificially created obstacles and hazard sources must be removed or at least made recognisable so that they do not pose a particular danger for the reasonable average driver even in poor sight conditions (RS0023469).

In the concrete case the wind fence was visible from afar and well recognisable. The fall was due to a chain of unfortunate circumstances: oblique impact, the anorak catching on a wood fibre protruding by a few millimetres, splintering of the wood through the force of the impact and the displacement of the wood-fibre structure because of a knot. The injury was thus not foreseeable; a breach of duty was ruled out.

Practical method, five questions for framing

From the OGH line, five central questions for practice can be drawn that order every slope accident. First: where was the obstacle, on the slope, in the 2-metre strip or further out? Second: was it artificially created or a natural feature? Third: was it visible from afar or hidden? Fourth: what construction or material property was in play? Fifth: what was the skier's driving style?

These five questions decide the prospects of the entire series "Slope safety 2026". Artificial snow as a substance is not atypical (post 1), snow cannons as obstacles are (post 3). Funparks have their own logic (post 2), winch cables at slope closing another (post 4). Snowmobiles share the quote (post 5), unattended installations shift the tracks (post 6), lift standstills are EKHG matter (post 7).

In-depth treatment in the slope accidents topic pages and in the foundational post on the slope edge. The series shows: careful case-by-case recording beats every template.

In short: The slope safety duty is a case-by-case matter. The yardstick is the relationship between hazard and avoidance possibility, the appearance of the slope and the conduct of the responsible skier. Templates do not help; a five-question recording does.

Frequently asked

Case-by-case assessment, practice and next steps.

What does "case-by-case assessment" mean in concrete terms? +

It means that there is no rigid rule for "subject to the safety duty or not". Decisive is an overall appreciation of the concrete local situation, the type of hazard, the recognisability and the reasonableness of the avoidance. Templates fail; the fact-finding decides.

When does work liability under Section 1319 ABGB come into play alongside the slope safety duty? +

Where a work (fence, building, installation) led to damage because of its deficient condition. The work owner bears the burden of proof for the care applied. Both liability tracks can be pursued in parallel. For buildings on slopes this is a frequently overlooked lever.

Which evidence is central in the case-by-case assessment? +

Photos of the obstacle from multiple perspectives, sight lines, weather data, slope-rescue protocol, witness statements, the ski area's maintenance documentation, expert opinion on the geometry. The earlier the securing, the better the evidentiary position.

How much time do I have for securing evidence? +

The limitation period is three years from knowledge of damage and tortfeasor (Section 1489 ABGB). The evidence factually decays much earlier however; slopes are groomed, installations dismantled, weather traces vanish. A first lawyer-led securing should occur within a few weeks.

Should I file a lawsuit immediately after an accident? +

Usually not immediately. The usual first step is the out-of-court claim assertion to the slope operator and liability insurer, with evidence securing and a request for acknowledgement in principle. Many cases settle in the pre-litigation phase. A lawsuit is mostly only necessary when the insurer rejects or limitation threatens.

Had an accident?

The sooner we secure the evidence, the better we can enforce your claim. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.

+43 660 2407152 strafrecht@brandauer-rechtsanwaelte.at
Contact

A direct line to the firm.

Address

BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg